Identifying the inherent problems of a monetary system

[spooky3]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is the title of the third film. I was asking if this is the film you watched.

 

You obviously didn't make yourself clear enough in the first place!

[IAchilleasI]

I'd like to address all of your points one by one, but I think there's been a breakdown in communication here, which is entirely my fault. You said that you had seen some movies sent to you from the Zeitgeist movement and made some comments that alluded to a Resource Based Economy, so I assumed you had knowledge of an RBE. I centred my following arguments around an RBE and they naturally appear non-sensical to someone who has never heard of it. I will be making a post in the following days with the relevant information, where you can ask your questions. For now, I'd like to focus on the OP, which is getting a bit derailed from various tangents that have been raised (myself included).

 

Now, let me get back to the points that are relevant.

 

So you are using the word willy nilly and not as actual fact, thanks for answering that one clearly!

 

Nope, I simply don't find it worthwhile having to justify every single word I use. In this case, I saved myself some time and decided it doesn't matter whether it's exponential or not.

 

Arbitrary, you want to remove it and think it's as simple as that.

 

Arbitrary indeed, but never simple to remove since it's been long ingrained into our culture. Not impossible though. But that's a different topic.

 

That we are here and that no moneyless socialist states don't exist.

 

All that proves is that it can exist in the now, not in the future.

[Cavegirl]

Your logic is flawed...

 

 

There are issues with the current monetary system, but we are an evolving world and it can be tweaked, this won't be the last time. But as to you stating it's unsustainable is a comment, not fact!

 

I wonder whether you might find this lecture interesting Spooky3. Dr Joseph Tainter is a Professor in Environment and Society at Utah Uni. His lecture is titled 'The Collapse of Complex Societies'. In the early part of the lecture he considers the factors that led to the collapse of the Roman Empire and looks for similarities in our own society.

 

But it's the later part that particularly interests me. He looks at the data from the US patent office and shows that the records present a decline over time in the number of patents applied for in every technological sector including, quite surprisingly, in new areas such as biotechnology and nanotechnology.

 

This is the 15 minutes that covers patent data:

 

The whole lecture begins here:

 

He argues that during the 19th century we easily discovered the 'low hanging fruit' of technology- electricity, radiowaves, radioactivity etc- they were all discovered essentially by lone wolf scientists working in the equivalent of their garages at home. In order to progress our understanding however, we've had to create more complexity- larger research teams and far more money are now needed to make new discoveries and for this to continue progressing we've had to start transferring productive wealth and resources from other sectors of society such as health, transport etc into technological development.

 

The economic system of infinite growth is unsustainable, but what's becoming ever clearer is that technological progress (the silver bullet in most economists argument of how we'll solve issues of resource and energy scarcity) is also unsustainable within a monetary society. We need a system that doesn't need to leach from other important sectors in order to provide technological answers to the energy and resource problem. We also need more intelligent minds freed up from devising complex and socially harmful financial derivatives and poured into the sustainable provision of energy, water and mineral resources before it's too late.

 

One of Tainter's paper's discussing this issue is available here:

http://www.goldonomic.com/tainter.htm

[IAchilleasI]

We also need more intelligent minds freed up from devising complex and socially harmful financial derivatives and poured into the sustainable provision of energy, water and mineral resources before it's too late.

 

A supreme waste of human intellect indeed.

This reminded me of a Bill Hicks quote:

“Does anyone here work in advertising or marketing? Well if you do, when you get home take a gun shoot yourself. No bull****, I'm not joking just do it. I'm just sowing seeds, one day they may take root.”

[spooky3]

I wonder whether you might find this lecture interesting Spooky3. Dr Joseph Tainter is a Professor in Environment and Society at Utah Uni. His lecture is titled 'The Collapse of Complex Societies'. In the early part of the lecture he considers the factors that led to the collapse of the Roman Empire and looks for similarities in our own society.

 

But it's the later part that particularly interests me. He looks at the data from the US patent office and shows that the records present a decline over time in the number of patents applied for in every technological sector including, quite surprisingly, in new areas such as biotechnology and nanotechnology.

 

This is the 15 minutes that covers patent data:

 

The whole lecture begins here:

 

He argues that during the 19th century we easily discovered the 'low hanging fruit' of technology- electricity, radiowaves, radioactivity etc- they were all discovered essentially by lone wolf scientists working in the equivalent of their garages at home. In order to progress our understanding however, we've had to create more complexity- larger research teams and far more money are now needed to make new discoveries and for this to continue progressing we've had to start transferring productive wealth and resources from other sectors of society such as health, transport etc into technological development.

 

The economic system of infinite growth is unsustainable, but what's becoming ever clearer is that technological progress (the silver bullet in most economists argument of how we'll solve issues of resource and energy scarcity) is also unsustainable within a monetary society. We need a system that doesn't need to leach from other important sectors in order to provide technological answers to the energy and resource problem. We also need more intelligent minds freed up from devising complex and socially harmful financial derivatives and poured into the sustainable provision of energy, water and mineral resources before it's too late.

 

One of Tainter's paper's discussing this issue is available here:

http://www.goldonomic.com/tainter.htm

 

Thanks, i'll watch n read when I get home.

 

 

I had a somewhat related discussion a while back about what would happen if you had a 'nice' (non-complex) society, say continent sized, closed off it's borders and became rather recluse, but was definitely a free society where people could come and go as they pleased. This society had no armies, there was no arguing, no bullying or competition based activities. It was a very nice society of people caring and understanding, dedicated to science and arts.

 

Then, after a millennia or so after all old wars and ways were long forgotten, a neighbouring continent who had gone any other way in social development had decided that it wanted to take the continent for it's own (for whatever reason). The 'nice' society wouldn't have the skill or where with all to defend itself from biased arguments (say monetary or just plain self interest), no militia trained well enough to be useful, etc... in essence it'd be a sitting duck waiting for some rouge element or foreign body to do with as they wanted.

 

Too much innocence or anything is not good for you. You need all types of people to make a well balanced society. Many years ago I remember reading an Archigram book and Ron Arad was discussing the necessity (inevitability) of a red light district in every city. Take any city in history from any culture or place and it is made up of the same odds and sods of people, all ancient and religious text describe it as the same. Technology changes, the way (not how) we interact doesn't.

 

 

Ramble over!

 

I'll title that, "we need competitive spirit"...

[spooky3]

A supreme waste of human intellect indeed.

This reminded me of a Bill Hicks quote:

“Does anyone here work in advertising or marketing? Well if you do, when you get home take a gun shoot yourself. No bull****, I'm not joking just do it. I'm just sowing seeds, one day they may take root.”

 

Are you also a Mormon?

[IAchilleasI]

I had a somewhat related discussion a while back about what would happen if you had a 'nice' (non-complex) society, say continent sized, closed off it's borders and became rather recluse, but was definitely a free society where people could come and go as they pleased. This society had no armies, there was no arguing, no bullying or competition based activities. It was a very nice society of people caring and understanding, dedicated to science and arts.

 

Then, after a millennia or so after all old wars and ways were long forgotten, a neighbouring continent who had gone any other way in social development had decided that it wanted to take the continent for it's own (for whatever reason). The 'nice' society wouldn't have the skill or where with all to defend itself from biased arguments (say monetary or just plain self interest), no militia trained well enough to be useful, etc... in essence it'd be a sitting duck waiting for some rouge element or foreign body to do with as they wanted.

 

Now take that example and instead of applying it to a single continent, do it globally. There'd be no one to instigate a war. Such a "nice" society, as you describe it, could not exist isolated from the rest of the world. You cannot have one community living in abundance and another in scarcity, because it creates envy, enmity and results in war.

 

I was also somewhat puzzled by your claim that Moore's Law is expiring hence technological progress is no longer exponential. Moore's Law only actually describes the number of transistors that can exist on a circuit and transistors don't account for all of technology.

 

Here's a talk on the exponentiality of technology and the abundance it provides

.

 

And another talk on the unsustainability of the current system

.

[spooky3]

Now take that example and instead of applying it to a single continent, do it globally. There'd be no one to instigate a war. Such a "nice" society, as you describe it, could not exist isolated from the rest of the world. You cannot have one community living in abundance and another in scarcity, because it creates envy, enmity and results in war.

...

 

How would you prevent certain groups / subcultures within from rebelling because they want something different?

[IAchilleasI]

How would you prevent certain groups / subcultures within from rebelling because they want something different?

 

For them to want that something different, I would expect it would have to be better than what already exists. If that were so, then everyone would adopt it. If not, why would the "rebels" want it in the first place?

[spooky3]

For them to want that something different, I would expect it would have to be better than what already exists. If that were so, then everyone would adopt it. If not, why would the "rebels" want it in the first place?

 

Because everybody is / needs to be different.